Discussion (23) ¬

Hahaha, oh my… Your strips are so consistantly excellent! And this one in particular got me laughing my patooty off. I am an art student, and I relate… I’m really glad to have found a really good online strip! 😀

agreed. most art students are up all night slaving over their artwork and trying to meet ridiculous deadlines. Although the comic is great and hits the stereotype and the common fear of an artist right on the head. good job.

I am so tired of this ugly stereotype being shat out by people (creative people nonetheless, what the hell?)

Please stop perpetuating this crap. Most “productive members of society” are giant meme-headed peons head-slaved to the almighty dollar and the ever important american idol finals. Art is not some slacker alternative in academia, and there are piles of money to be made while doing requiring more than just the left half of one’s brain.

Sorry to be harsh, but America has a big thumb up it’s ass when it comes to the Arts, and media like this is part of the reason why.

You’re right, art isn’t a slacker alternative. The workload for a college student in a deeply creative discipline — studio art, photography, dance, creative writing, and so forth — is quite shocking to those who assume science and engineering students are doing all the work. The art student-as-slacker stereotype is overused and out of place.

It’s a pity, then, that you left your rant on this comic, which isn’t perpetuating that stereotype. “Arts student,” nowadays, means a student of the “liberal arts.” For example, an English degree. Now, while there are certainly English majors who are hard at work, improving their writing and research skills to eventually be professors, journalists, writers, editors, or whatever they want to be. On the other hand, there are also students who are English majors because it’s possible to coast through, earning decent grades with minimal effort, spending more of their matriculation drunk than reading.

And while they do that, they laugh at the science majors who are hard at work on Saturday afternoons during college. The science majors who end up employed, while the slacker English majors will do literary analysis for food.

It’s also wrong to assume that science is all–or even primarily–a left-brained activity. Science at its core is the most creative, most imaginative, most intuitive and empathetic discipline. Certainly most people cannot see that, because they’re taught that mathematics (the foundation of the sciences) is simply rote memorization of algorithms and seemingly-meaningless associations of numbers.

But in order to be a successful mathematician (or physicist, engineer, biologist, chemist, software designer, etc), you have to see what things LOOK LIKE. You must picture them in your head, imagine relationships between them, and understand these oft-obscure and deeply technical relationships. To really succeed in the sciences one must be a master of communication as well, with a great facility for language and the ability to draw (with words if not with fingers) pretty pictures of what you’re working on. One must know metaphor and simile, one must see beauty and feel awe, and above all, one must enjoy engaging their minds in deep effort.

All of these methods are stereotypically provinces of the artist, but, really, they’re the baseline of what one requires to succeed in any endeavor. It just so happens there are a metric fuckton of well-paying jobs in the sciences, while there are a very few gigantically well-paying jobs in the arts. By the odds, scientists make out better than artists because the art which scientists produce has paying customers. If you want to use money as a metric of cultural value, then science is more “valuable” than non-scientific art. You are of course free to measure relative value on any criterion you choose, though in my opinion almost all science beats almost all art for measures such as beauty, depth, awe-inspiration, perspective, insight, and accomplishment. Opinions of course vary, mostly with familiarity (or lack thereof), or simple fear of the subject(s). C’est la vie, and all that.

It’s always been (and always will be) true that the vast majority of people are mindless slaves to their emotions. Pointing out that there exist scientists who care only for social norms and power-games serves no better purpose than the contrapositive, and detracts from any meaningful discussion on the topic.

If the wonderful productive person here had the ability to appreciate som good literature, instead of dorky fantasy books, the guy who is into literature could earn some good money too. His production does not use up any precious natural resources. The productive guy is probably into producing unnecessary shit that only depletes the earth (like the most of us).

Ah Mike, I personally feel that literature originated on paper, which of course does deplete the world’s natural resources. But now, it is on computers etc, which ofc, are only available to the literature composers due to advancements in the Science sector. Science drives our world, arts are there for petty entertainment during the intermission.

This is such a lovely argument and I’ve enjoyed reading these responses to your nicely-done toon! (I love that cartoons can stir such conversation!) Bravo, Luke!

I was visiting Paris last summer… and it is amazing the value they place on the arts. There is a reason that many fall in love with Paris; I believe it is partly because the Parisians beautify their city with sculpture, with museums, with a particular attention to artistic details. They have perfected the “art of living.”
I don’t begrudge the sciences at all… they are necessary and important. But it is a shame that in this country, we don’t place the same value on art as we do business or science. Life is a balance, and if your scale tips too far on professions that only inspire certain things such as the procurement of money, your society is left with a void.

oh yeah, we art students have it easy. i mean really, all i have to do this week is write two research papers, make three collages, fill two sketchbooks, finish a wood sculpture, rework five drawings, study for an art history exam, and make prints of all of my work from the past year to present to a review committee. that’s nothing, right?

It is hilarious how many people are so excited ranting about their persecution they fail to perceive the comic isn’t even about art.

Even funnier are those railing against being stereotyped while happily perpetuating another stereotype, that people who major in the sciences are unimaginative, materialistic, mindless, uncultured, avaricious drones.

The sciences allow us to live longer, healthier lives. Art makes living our lives worth it.

As someone with an Arts degree, who does nothing but work in the sciences (petrochem, pharma & biofuels), I can assure you that the well rounded scientist is few and far between, and those that are – they stand out above the rest and are the ones you hear most about.

After 15 years in technical personnel strategic planning & IP (not an HR function!) and since, years in grant writing for DoE, DOD, USDA, NSF, NASA, NIH and other research generous areas of the US Govt seeking to lend a hand to the creative in the sciences (but can’t write/speak/engineer their way as a social being any better than the average economics or finance Ph.D.), I can assure you that only those with low aspirations end up on the bottom, and those with degrees in the Humanities (which includes education) are the ones that are teaching YOUR CHILDREN – and also taught you, (your high school science teacher was no scientist!). Their function as a “productive member of society” isn’t based on their income, it’s based on their contribution to society.

I’ve seen graffiti with more value than the humdrum, lower 50% of their class, production engineer’s contribution to society as a whole, and I’ve seen poets who (how? still a mystery to me) gain the respect of generations of people and an appreciation for their work and contribution to literature, and earn literally peanuts for decades – and suddenly find themselves in the enviable position of the social equiv of Poet Laureate of the United States of America for their contribution.

This is why their is a Nobel Prize for Medicine, Chemistry, Economics, Literature, and so on. The value isn’t based on some monetary measurement of productivity. It is, as the post above says… that which makes our lives worth living.

And that isn’t just limited to the arts – it’s also the goal of creative scientists. And creative, productive scientists often find their inspiration by turning off the “left brain” and permitting the “right brain” to work on that which they seek solutions for, subconsciously, while enjoying that which is music (as complex a mathematical theme, as anyone who has ever done an analysis of musical interpretation, thematic equivs to higher mathematics in tonal structure, etc.,) as well as enjoying literature, theatre, (movies/tv/the crap that is on the internet that is “entertainment” – riding on electrons/photons down a wire or fiber, that was constructed by scientists but is populated with content in equal numbers of both groups!) – and of course, actual “artwork” – who, as any mathematician will tell you, who has explored their field in depth, that Escher and other artists have based their entire work on concepts in math, that demonstrate the conundrums of mathematical puzzles with incredible clarity and refreshing beauty via a visual representation only an artist could bring.

Much like the “beauty of mathematical formulas” that introduce random yet replicable numbers can be demonstrated as fractals that are as stunning on a computer screen or printed out – as is the crystallization patterns of minerals and mere ice and snow – pure chaos, pure beauty, purely unpredictable, not fully understood, yet potentially of value in multiple ways to varying groups of people, be they true artists, a graduate of the “arts/humanities” or purely of the sciences.

I’ve known as many anthropology and education undergrads who found their way into medical school for reasons that are their own, that were just as excellent a medical practitioner as was the biomedical engineer and the biology major (who focused on single cell water inhabitants or bacteria – with the intent of going into medicinal chemistry) – and yet they are working in an emergency room 10 years later, and are psychiatrists (also MDs) 5 years after their residency is complete and they’ve chosen their field of interest.

Regardless of field, there are, always… half of the group that finished in the bottom half of their class. Be they doctors, lawyers, chemists, teachers, artists, writers, journalists, engineers or physicists.

If anyone can be included in a group that contributes far less to society than others, it is those who fall into that category. Who can’t, or do not, because of personality & genetics, or simple lack of desire to do more and be more, and just get by, and are satisfied “enough.”

And those in that group would look upon the other half and ask “who are you to judge that what we do (or do not) makes us none-productive members of society?”

I don’t have an answer to that question – it’s a prejudicial judgment at best.

But I do have an answer for all of you that come down on one side or the other of this argument or cartoon, vs. realizing that until one makes the decision to go the route of “the sciences” or “the arts/humanities” – the things that form your impressions of the world as a child are music, pictures, stories, activities, education (by parents, siblings and professionals) who, if successful, teach you how to be creative – and would do well by considering the quote of one of the greatest scientists of all, and fortunately for many of us, of “our time” – that being Albert Einstein.

It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge. -Albert Einstein